Decision Of The Court Of Cassation On The Debtor’s Refusal To Receive The Notification
T.C YARGITAY 12th Civil Chamber Esas: 2010/ 33337 Decision: 2011 / 15608 Date of Decision: 07.07.2014
Supreme Court Decision
COURT : Bakırköy 1st Execution Law Court
HISTORY : 13/10/2010
NUMBER : 2010/1019-2010/1365
Upon the request of the creditor to examine the above-dated and numbered court decision on appeal within the due date, the file related to this matter was sent to the department from the relevant file, it was read and discussed and considered accordingly:
It is seen that in the proceeding made by the creditor against the debtor company by way of foreclosure on bills of exchange, the payment order numbered sample 10 was issued to the debtor’s attorney, the debtor’s attorney refused to receive the said document due to his resignation, whereupon the notification document was returned on 02.03.2010, the payment order sent to the other attorney this time was served to the permanent employee signature on 17.06.2010, and this attorney resigned from the attorneyship with the petition dated 22.06.2010 to the enforcement office.
Pursuant to Article 11 of the Notification Law No. 7201 and Articles 62 and 68 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is obligatory to serve the notification to the attorney in the works pursued by proxy. The debtor company is represented by a power of attorney dated 15.05.2009 and numbered 15251 of Bakırköy 12th notary public. Pursuant to Article 41 of the Attorneyship Law No. 1136, the attorney who voluntarily withdraws from the pursuit or defense of a certain matter shall continue to act as an attorney for fifteen days from the notification of the situation to his client. In this case, the resignation of the debtor’s attorney after receiving the payment order has no effect on the finalization of the proceeding. In that case, instead of accepting the complaint, it is inappropriate for the court to rule for its rejection on written grounds.
CONCLUSION : With the acceptance of the creditor’s appeal objections, it was unanimously decided on 07/07/2011 to (DISMISS) the court decision in accordance with Article 366 of the EBL and Article 428 of the HUMK for the reasons written above.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.